A lot more can be done. We, as Oxfam, have concerns about the way humanitarian aid is delivered.
As I mentioned before, anything that has to do with advancing women's rights and gender equality—like specific programs focused on women in a humanitarian response—is not generally deemed eligible for funding, because it's not perceived as life-saving. We need to either widen our definition or understanding of humanitarian aid, or build in a joint approach, where you have programs supporting women's empowerment and equality alongside humanitarian initiatives. Right now, humanitarian responses have a very narrow focus on protection, but that doesn't build a more equal society after the humanitarian response has passed. Widen that up.
At Oxfam, we work on gender and emergencies. This can allow women to be involved in local committees that determine how aid is going to be spent. It can mean skills training so women are participating in water initiatives or learning how they can maintain boreholes after an international organization like Oxfam has built them so they can be involved in long-term maintenance. All of that is so disconnected, right now, from the way we fund humanitarian work, and we don't get the full impact we could. Canada is a generous humanitarian funder. However, by divorcing the two, we're running after our tail. We're going from one emergency to the next.
Whether it's a natural disaster or a war, women's rights backtrack. This is systemic. We lose ground on gender equality. Therefore, in the world we're living in today, we're likely see significant backsliding if we don't make those investments.